Discussion in 'PvP Gameplay' started by Raistlyn, Nov 16, 2016.
Its finally more crowded. Give it a try @Abydos
Although I support giving an experience bonus to pvp as it clearly is more risk than pve...
This doesn't create an environment where I want to openly flag for pvp.
I know I'm being repetitive here, but it's because I feel as though a very important fact is ignored in decisions to have pvp. To make my point, I'm going to partially invoke the "most people" verbiage that I usually take great pains to avoid because I don't speak for "most people" I only speak for myself.
I believe in order for "most people" to enjoy pvp, there has to be more structure than just "you can get attacked anywhere at any time". The game isn't balanced in a way where that's going to be fun. Why? Because most people don't enjoy losing all the time. They like to have an opportunity to win, and in an open pvp environment that opportunity is predicated by 1. How many friends you have, and 2. How powerful your character is.
So if you don't have any friends or you're not in the top 1% of players, you're not expected to be winning in pvp. You can get a 25% experience bonus, but you're still not going to be on the "fun" side of things so why would you subject yourself to that?
If we're serious about support pvp, we need to start thinking about it in terms of winning and losing as much as we think about it in terms of risk vs. reward. FPS games understand this, and that's why they don't make FPS games that have modes of player where 64 players are against 1.
Selective multiplayer allows us the ability to restrict scenes to 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 8 v 8, whatever, and I believe that if we had a clear line in the sand that said "if you go into X scene you're only going to have to fight against ONE other player", we'd have all kinds of players participating in pvp - so they could get the experience bonus, but also so they could have a more reasonable expectation of having fun.
When it comes to true "open world pvp" however, we can't always have "fair fights", and so to augment and support the concept of "fun" fights, we really need NPC guards. We need them in POTs, like Rats Nest, and we also need them in NPC towns. Because haven't a place to go where you might still be out numbered but the guards will "help" you either escape or be reasonably protected is important to the balance of pvp. Again, no one wants to be on the side of the few being spawn camped, that's not fun. So the goal should always be to create pockets of support for pvp to exist but not be dominated by gank squads.
Another solution would be to have two players who fight each become equal. Only the personal skill would determine if someone wins and not if one spends 20 hours a day grinding and the other only has 1 hour a day to play the game.
You can turn it around however you like, you will never get a fair outcome in open PvP. There will always be players who are better than others because they concentrate on training for PvP. This is why FPS are fair. 1. You can't advance beyond your own skill and 2. there is nothing else in the game to do than to fight.
If SotA would just offer PvP maybe this would be different but this game is not about PvP only. So either you just do PvP in order to be able to compete or you lose.
No incentive will ever make those like PvP who always lose because they don't have enough time to play.
Solution: Make everyone in equal in PvP. No matter how hard you grind, if you fight a newbie both are equal and have a fair chance of winning.
But I doubt that it is fairness those who are proposing open PvP want... This is why I think every incentive for PvP is just leading lambs to the slaughter so that the griefers and gankers are satisfied.
Dude we are here for an rpg and virtual world not Call of Duty. Pls stop... sometimes you win, sometimes you lose every sane person gets that. Go do some quests in singleplayer.
Which confirms my view
It's OK, I'm pretty sure MMO mode feels the same way about you.
This reply is AMAZING. Let me make sure im reading this right, its unfair if someone whom trains in their PvP skills has a chance to beat someone who doesnt? How is that even logical? Work=reward, you train at your PvP you get good, dont train you either lose all the time or hone the skills. Players choice, oh and if players dont like that dont flag PvP. Sounds like in those cases the 25% wouldnt be worth it to the player anyway.
Next thing im going to read is going to state that the 25% exp gain should be applied to SPO for flagging PvP
You can always view it in single player offline.
I'm feeling pretty good about R36
That is for you to find out...
my signature is a hint for sure.
Bring it, I like the idea of being hunted....
They still haven't came up with a reason for us to leave Friends-Only mode.
As I said Open PvP in MMORPGs is not about fairness.
It's like if the ruffians in high-schools ask the principal to make the entrance of the school a fight zone. There not only those who train in fighting are attacked but everyone. Even those who don't want to fight. And somehow this is supposed to be fun...
And the principal will boost the marks of everyone who uses this entrance and lets himself be beaten up...
I think the next PVP experiment should be to equalize levels of all pvp combatants involved in the scene. This would be interesting to see.
I think it would be good if for PvP flagged basements for example was possible for the owner to place some objects that more or less set some rules for the battle.
So place a .... and every combatant had 1000 health
Place a ... and all spells from the ... school fizzled.
I got PK'd in my first 5 minutes. Stunlock air mage BS even with stun res + the 20% buff to CC after first cast.
Nothing fun or challenging about that.
Also didn't see anything but 2 straps in the Oracle UI, but I lost my offhand after clicking not to pay ransom.
Just like old UO (pre Trammel) Avatars have way better loot than monsters, so who would not become a griefer?
At least UO had a negative to being a 'red' to balance the decision to PK. Getting guard killed in cities etc
I'm flagged. Already PK'd once. Whoever it was waited til I was well engaged with thugs and fighters before letting the arrows fly. Cost me about 2k to the Oracle, but I say the 25 percent gain is worth the risk.
Welcome to PvP.
Not for me....I am behind the curve but i wouldn't like this at all as it just creates a game with no reason to make decisions in how you are building your character, and effort put in. Maybe for something like a PvP tourney etc, but not for open world.
My other gaming circles would embrace a SOTA that does not have a non-PvP mode. I am sure there are many people that would join a no holds barred SOTA (without full loot), and some of those I told not to because they were all about PvP, that would fully sign on if that was the norm even though it is not balanced.
My personal opinion is that either way is fine. That is all.
However, many friends in the game would not enjoy that and I would not not wish that upon them either. I like the incentives idea because it does not break the PvP-by-choice promise and yet drives us that way.
i will not flag on pvp for few reasons:
1. playing on multiplayer hits with a huge latency even if the map is hosted by a friend in the same region
2. game is not yet balanced enough
3. skills and combat are still too buggy and not fleshed out
To stop what many perceive as ganking/griefing, where high-level Avatars lay in wait to kill others as they zone-in to a scene, or are resurrecting, could a system be put in place that would stop someone from attacking another Avatar if they were x-levels lower? If the lower-leveled Avatar attacked first, then they could be attacked. I played a game a long while back (don't remember title) which had a similar mechanic for mobs...once your character had out leveled NPC's/mobs by a certain number of levels they were gray to you, and could not be attacked, and they would not attack you.
This would not stop an Avatar from attacking/killing someone as they zone-in or resurrect in a scene if the levels are closer to one another...but at least the one being attacked would have a better chance of defending themselves.
Don't know enough about game-code to know how something like this would/could work...but it would help, imo, ease the perception by many that if they flag for PvP they're going to be ganked/griefed by high-level PK's who just want to farm their stuff and will wait by static zone-in areas and/or resurrection spots to kill them over and over.
Just an idea, and if it's not workable, then maybe it might create other ideas. Others with more knowledge about such things might have ideas to better flesh it out.
Separate names with a comma.